However, I understand the current situation is that the ‘legacy’ IPv6 address allocation was for smaller allocations within blocks on /29 boundaries, if I read the Proposition correctly.
As a special case only, I would support the allocation of these ‘legacy /29’ blocks. The provisos being that firstly they do fall into this ‘legacy’ category, and that secondly it is not possible (owing to allocation to a third party) to allocate a /28 to the relevant resource holder